- (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Sec. 56 of the Stamp Act against the order of Collector, Banswara dated 18-12-66 imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,744 & Rs. 468/- as deficiency in stamp duty. The facts of the case in brief are in respect of a sale deed registered on 26- 8-63. The sub-Registrar made a reference to the Collector on 22 7 66 under sec. 66 of the Stamp Act about which it was found that on consideration of Rs. 30,951 as against stamp duty of Rs. 1434 Rs. 966 only were paid. The vendee's explanation before the Collector. Banswara was that it was by mistake that full amount of stamp duty was not paid as they were ignorant of the law and that they were prepared to pay the deficient amount. The learned Collector, did not accept the plea and imposed a penalty equal to eight times of the amount of deficiency and ordered that the deficit amount of Rs. 468 and penalty of Rs. 3744 be recovered from the vendees severally or jointly and after the recovery the impounded document be released with a proper certificate. It is against this order that this revision petition has been filed.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the Deputy Govt. Advocate. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that once the document was registered and returned the Collector had no jurisdiction to impose the penalty as he had become functus officio. AIR 1266 MP 20 was cited wherein a reference under sec- 57 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act being made by the Board of Revenue as the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, in case where the Sub-Registrar sent a deed after its registration to the Collector under paragraph 232 of the Registration Manual reporting that the deed was insufficiently stampted, it was held that after the registration of the deed, the registering authority had no power to hold enquiry regarding the value of the property covered by the deed and call upon the executant to pay the deficit stamp duty. It was further held that the power to impound an instrument can be exercised under Sec, 33 (1) of Stamp Act only when the instrument is produced before the registration in the performance of their function that is only so long as the function is not performed or completed, and not afterwards. Paragraphs 231 and 232 of the Registration Manual did not say that after a document is admitted to registration the registering officer can make a report to the Collector that it was not sufficiently stamped. AIR 1930 Bombay 392 was also cited where a sale certificate granted to the purchaser by the court had only a 4 annas stamp though it should have borne a stamp of eight annas. A copy of the certificates was sent to the Sub-Registrar who informed the court that it was insufficiently stamped. The Judge got the certificate back from the purchaser and thinking that he had power to accept the document and impose a penalty, asked for the opinion of the High Court. It was held that until the judge signed the sale certificate there was no instrument and so the sale certificate could not be said to come before the judge in the performance of his function, when it was submitted to him for his signature and seal on the first occasion. It was further held that when the judge signed the certificate on the first occasion} he was functus officio and therefore he was not acting judicially in allowing second four anna stamp to be attached. It was also held that as that judge when the certificate was presented to him for the second time was functus officio, he could not impound it under Sec. 33 (1) nor had he any legal authority in the exercise of his own inherent powers to recover the requisite stamp of additional value. AIR 1961 Supreme Court 787 was also cited wherein it was held that where an executed instrument is presented before Collector under Sec. 33 of Stamp Act for his opinion uinder Sec. 31 as to proper duty in regard to an instrument, the Collector had no power to impound the document. AIR 1958 Raj 291 was also cited where it was held that the powers to demand proper duty and penalty is conferred upon the Collector by Sec 40 (l))b ). That section however, is applicable when the Collector impounds any instrument under sec. 33 or receives any instrument sent to him under Sec. 38 sub Section (2 ). Where after the original document had been taken away after registration the Registration Inspector after scrutinizing the copy of the document reports to the Tehsildar that the document was improperly stamped and the Tehsildar forwarded the papers to the Collector for guidance, the original document never came to be impounded and therefore Sec. 40 had no aupplication. The document not having been impounded either by the Collector or by any other officer sent to him under Sec. 38 the occasion for the demand of any deficit duty and penalty had not arisen. The Collector had no jurisdiction therefore to make a demand of any deficit duty and penalty. The learned Deputy Government Advocate referred to Rule 60 read with Sec. 41 of the Stamp Act and maintained that if the person in possession of the instrument with was not duly stamped, had produced it of his own motion before the Collector within one year from the date of its execution and offered to pay the amount required to make up the proper duty, and the Collector was satisfied that the omission to duly stamp such instrument has been occasioned by accident, mistake or urgent necessity, he could instead of proceeding under Sec. 33 and 40, receive such amount. In the present case, obviously the instrument was not produced by any person of his own motion, but was produced when called upon to do so. Therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to take advantage of Sec. 41. Rule 60 of Rajasthan Stamp Rules specifically provided that the plea of ignorance of the requirements of the law should not be lightly accepted. Rule 66 provided procedure in case of detection of deficiency in stamped or under-stamped instruments during inspection or otherwise. It reads - (1) In cases where an unstamped or under-stamped instrument is detected in course of inspection or otherwise by a public officer, a report thereof, shall be made forthwith to the Collector. (2) The Collector shall thereupon issue a notice to the executant or such other person as may be liable to pay the duty under Sec. 29 of the Act requiring him to produce the original instrument before the Collector. Rule 67 provides as under - - (1) If the original instrument is produced in compliance with the notice issued under sub-rule (2) of the rule 66 and is found to have been executed within one year of the date of such production, it will be treated as having been produced voluntarily for the purpose of Sec. 41 of the Act. (2) If other conditions laid down in that section are also satisfied, the instrument shall be endorsed by the Collector as properly stamped on payment of the deficit duty, if any, and no penalty whatever shall be levied in respect thereof. With reference to these provisions the learned Deputy Government Advocate argued that the applicant was not entitled to take advantage of Rule 67 (1) and (2 ). The instrument was produced when so asked to do by the Collector under Rule 66 (2 ). It was not executed within one year of its production hence it could not be treated to have been voluntarily produced for the purposes of Sec. 41 of the Act, and since it was not claimed that the omission to duly stamp the instrument was occasioned by accident, mistake or urgent necessity, the applicants cannot escape from the payment of penalty. The only plea advanced by the applicants is that they were not conversant with the law but as provided in Rule 60 plea of ignorance of law cannot lightly be accepted, and the same has been rightly rejected by the Collector for good reasons. I am in agreement with the arguments advanced by the learned Deputy Government Advocate and find that the Collector was justified and acted within his jurisdiction by calling back the instrument and imposing the penalty, after hearing the applicant The application is, therefore, rejected and the order of the Collector dated 18-12-1966 is upheld. .;